The effect described where plants can shed extra genetic burden can be readily seen with variegated plants. The variegation is sporadically lost and the resulting green portions of the plant grow much faster, eventually taking over.
Adding the Luciferase gene is fine and dandy. But to get the plant to glow, it also has to produce the appropriate luciferin. The photo they use of a glowing tobacco plant was produced by watering the tobacco with luciferin solution and then using a very long exposure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glowing_tobacco_plant.jpg)
That said, the luciferin found in dinoflagelates is derived from chlorophyll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin) and it is conceptually possible to introduce the relevant algae genes into their plant... once the genes have been identified. This sort of metabolic engineering is a MUCH bigger task than the Kickstarter campaign people are planning for.
The energetic difficulty could be worked around by making the plant into a biological capacitor... where it builds up luciferin all day and then discharges in a flash at night. The plants wouldn't be of any use in landscape lightly, but they would be a really cool landscape feature. The downside is they might drive any local fireflies insane.
you should read further than just the abstract of the paper
it really helps to read what you cite. Don't worry, plenty of professional scientists don't do this... citing papers that don't actually have anything to do with what they're talking about in their paper.
The introduction of the paper contradicted what you referred to in the abstract. (This is fairly common because condensing the entire paper into an abstract leads to information loss.) You focussing on what the abstract said, rather than what the paper said suggested you read the abstract, but not the complete paper. There were several citations from the paper which, when those papers were read, contradicted what the paper claimed those citations said. This indicates the authors are not in agreement with the community they're working in. (Again, fairly common.)
Citing the number of Google findings from 'prion strain' also suggested a quick overview method of research review. Googling 'prion isoform' produced a similar, but larger number of hits. At best it suggests there might be disagreement over terminology among scientists researching prions. A more likely interpretation is that neither result means much, but referring to google as an authority could be interpreted as an attempt to prove superior Google-fu.
Several thinly veiled strains of condescension implying that (a) I don't know what a prion actually is; (b) I didn't read what I cited; (c) I cited a paper that didn't actually have anything to do with what I was talking about; and (d) I'm an idiot. Thinly veiled, but easy to translate: I'm an ignorant buffoon and you're an expert, so I should stop playing in the same room as you. In other words, you were a jackass.
(a)(b) How many of the papers cited by the paper you cited did you read? Doing so it made it clear that the authors in that paper were using the term 'strain' to mean what researchers in other communities mean by 'isoform'.
(c) I was referring to citations that paper made which made it clear the paper you cited was talking about isoform differences.
(d) I never said this in any way, nor do I think it is a relevant statement. If you know something that I don't, I don't think of myself as an idiot. If I know something that you don't, I don't think of you as an idiot. If we have a disagreement of opinion, I don't think either of us are idiots. Seriously?
Argumentum ex cathedra: "I'm an expert, all you amateurs stand back!"
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I did. I was pointing out that real science involves arguments, but thanks for playing. I made no "thinly veiled personal attacks". The closest I made to personal attacks was calling you a jackass in response to you making personal attacks. You accused me of thinking I knew better than anyone else, so I pointed out that I am a researcher and that real science involves arguments as a matter of course. Me having an argument means that I think something differently AND I want to know better about something.
A solution would be to make it illegal to have a change in speed limit above a certain rate downwards... any township caught doing so would be fined dramatically each time the state sherif drove through the area. If corporations are people, then incorporated towns are people too, and so there probably need to be laws restricting their behavior as well.
I had a misunderstanding about prions having multiple pathogenic folds which are commonly referred to as 'strains'. The term 'strain' is very often misconstrued by science writers in the media to mean the same thing as a 'strain' of bacteria, leading to most media discussions of the pathogen having many of the fundamentals wrong. I may have jumped the gun in thinking you were making the same mistake.
Of course, since you're posting on Slashdot, you must be a subject matter expert and know must know better than everyone else.
I am an actual practicing biologist in academia at a major research institution, but don't let that stop you from being a jackass and making claims that don't represent reality. Actual science, practiced by actual scientists, is full of arguments all the time. Scientific conventions are hothouses of drinking, dancing, and fighting. However, once you've decided to go with personal attacks, you're no longer doing science and should examine your motivations.
The word 'strain' doesn't imply anything about pathogenicity. People refer to different strains of plants, animals, fungus, etc. that have no pathogenic modes.
Prions don't replicate themselves. They convert pre-existing host prion proteins into an altered pathogenic conformation. If you have active prion disease, it is your own cellular-synthesized protein which has become mis-folded and is causing pathogenesis. The initial mis-folding in your body can happen sporadically or it can be triggered by mis-folded prion proteins from external exposure.
It turns out there are different pathogenic ways the native prion protein can mis-fold and that these are referred to as 'strains', but that term doesn't imply what it means in other contexts. I'm not claiming that those articles are incorrect, I am claiming that you are misunderstanding those articles because you don't understand what prions are and how they work.
The authors cited use the term 'molecular strain types', when they should have said 'molecular isoforms'. An 'isoform' is not the same as a 'strain type'. An isoform is a variation of a protein, due to a different gene sequence. Unless you're prone to referring to different types of soda pop as different strains, you really shouldn't refer to different isoforms as different strains either.
In particular, you should read further than just the abstract of the paper you just referred to. The second sentence into the introduction is:
Their central feature is the post-translational conversion of host-encoded, cellular prion protein (PrPC) to an abnormal isoform, designated PrPSc.
This accurately tells you what a prion is and how the pathogenic process occurs. Because it is conversion of the host prion proteins, the only 'strain' that exists is the host. With regard to the pathogenic process, it is better to think of some people as 'kuru strain' while others are not.
In general, it really helps to read what you cite. Don't worry, plenty of professional scientists don't do this... citing papers that don't actually have anything to do with what they're talking about in their paper.
I'm far more scared of pathogens than nukes, though, and I don't think this idea deserves the derision it's getting. Prion diseases, for example, are really terrifying stuff. The kuru strain of the CJD prion, for example, exhibited an incubation period of between 5 and 20 years. If you were really determined, you could get that disease into a lot of people before it started showing itself.
There is no such thing as a 'kuru strain' of the CJD prion. Prions are not infectious organisms. If you get exposed to pathogenic prions, the prions naturally found in your brain are converted into pathogenic prions. This process is more akin to crystallization, rather than a standard infectious process. If you get exposed to pathogenic prions from humans, cows, sheep, or gerbils... the course of the infection is only determined by how you were exposed, how much of the protein you were exposed to, and your own genetic situation.
The 'computer models' are the 'theoretical models'. They are validated by comparisons to reality. The models (and the reality) are chaotic, so if you keep calculating a certain model it will diverge from reality in greater degrees. Gravity is a pretty good model, but on the scale of the solar system the effects are chaotic. Every calculation of the solar system has increasing uncertainty as you increase the time into the future you are calculating.
The development of climate science has led progressively to more accurate predictions over time converging on a good answer, at specific future intervals for each calculation. Continuing a single calculation out into the indefinite future leads to increasing uncertainty. I have a hard time believing that you are honestly making this mistake.
Generally the progress will move forward faster with non-human DNA, then the lessons learned are applied to human DNA. Humans are really hard to keep contained in the lab for multi-generational studies.
I did not commit rape since there is an implicit consent between me and my wife
Actually in the scenario you just described, there is not consent between you and your wife. You wanted sex and she said, "No." This is not "implicit consent" or "consent" in any form, but rather an "explicit rejection". "Consent" refers to agreement.
In a sense, you did "consent" to the notion that your wife is not your property to do with as you will and that you are not a rapist. However, this is not context in which the word is generally used.
Essentially, they found that individuals with poor impulse-control are more likely to get arrested.
Let me break out the Champagne... oh wait, people already knew that poor impulse-control was at the root of most criminality... and we also already knew that the ACC was involved in impulse-control... I guess we now know that A and B = (A and B).
this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money.
It doesn't matter why they were bought. The first-sale doctrine says that you only control it until you sell it. Once you have sold it, it is no longer yours to control. If you want control over something, then don't give control to someone else by selling it to them.
The original sample was the cancer which killed Henrietta Lacks. Cancers generally have rampant chromosomal aberrations, though it is not entirely reasoned out if the aberrations are a cause or consequence of the unregulated growth which defines the cancer.
This result doesn't invalidate any science. Every experiment using a model teaches us something about the model. We make inferences from those results which we apply and test in other systems, such as human medicine. Given that there are humans walking around with alterations to their chromosomes (admittedly at a lesser level than this), even results from one human don't necessarily apply to any other human.
Slashdot Mirror
COOL! Thanks for this response!
The effect described where plants can shed extra genetic burden can be readily seen with variegated plants. The variegation is sporadically lost and the resulting green portions of the plant grow much faster, eventually taking over.
Adding the Luciferase gene is fine and dandy. But to get the plant to glow, it also has to produce the appropriate luciferin. The photo they use of a glowing tobacco plant was produced by watering the tobacco with luciferin solution and then using a very long exposure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glowing_tobacco_plant.jpg)
That said, the luciferin found in dinoflagelates is derived from chlorophyll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin) and it is conceptually possible to introduce the relevant algae genes into their plant... once the genes have been identified. This sort of metabolic engineering is a MUCH bigger task than the Kickstarter campaign people are planning for.
The energetic difficulty could be worked around by making the plant into a biological capacitor... where it builds up luciferin all day and then discharges in a flash at night. The plants wouldn't be of any use in landscape lightly, but they would be a really cool landscape feature. The downside is they might drive any local fireflies insane.
And chickens are dinosaurs. ;-)
you should read further than just the abstract of the paper
it really helps to read what you cite. Don't worry, plenty of professional scientists don't do this... citing papers that don't actually have anything to do with what they're talking about in their paper.
The introduction of the paper contradicted what you referred to in the abstract. (This is fairly common because condensing the entire paper into an abstract leads to information loss.) You focussing on what the abstract said, rather than what the paper said suggested you read the abstract, but not the complete paper. There were several citations from the paper which, when those papers were read, contradicted what the paper claimed those citations said. This indicates the authors are not in agreement with the community they're working in. (Again, fairly common.)
Citing the number of Google findings from 'prion strain' also suggested a quick overview method of research review. Googling 'prion isoform' produced a similar, but larger number of hits. At best it suggests there might be disagreement over terminology among scientists researching prions. A more likely interpretation is that neither result means much, but referring to google as an authority could be interpreted as an attempt to prove superior Google-fu.
Several thinly veiled strains of condescension implying that (a) I don't know what a prion actually is; (b) I didn't read what I cited; (c) I cited a paper that didn't actually have anything to do with what I was talking about; and (d) I'm an idiot. Thinly veiled, but easy to translate: I'm an ignorant buffoon and you're an expert, so I should stop playing in the same room as you. In other words, you were a jackass.
(a)(b) How many of the papers cited by the paper you cited did you read? Doing so it made it clear that the authors in that paper were using the term 'strain' to mean what researchers in other communities mean by 'isoform'.
(c) I was referring to citations that paper made which made it clear the paper you cited was talking about isoform differences.
(d) I never said this in any way, nor do I think it is a relevant statement. If you know something that I don't, I don't think of myself as an idiot. If I know something that you don't, I don't think of you as an idiot. If we have a disagreement of opinion, I don't think either of us are idiots. Seriously?
Argumentum ex cathedra: "I'm an expert, all you amateurs stand back!"
Note that this is exactly the opposite of what I did. I was pointing out that real science involves arguments, but thanks for playing. I made no "thinly veiled personal attacks". The closest I made to personal attacks was calling you a jackass in response to you making personal attacks. You accused me of thinking I knew better than anyone else, so I pointed out that I am a researcher and that real science involves arguments as a matter of course. Me having an argument means that I think something differently AND I want to know better about something.
A solution would be to make it illegal to have a change in speed limit above a certain rate downwards... any township caught doing so would be fined dramatically each time the state sherif drove through the area. If corporations are people, then incorporated towns are people too, and so there probably need to be laws restricting their behavior as well.
I had a misunderstanding about prions having multiple pathogenic folds which are commonly referred to as 'strains'. The term 'strain' is very often misconstrued by science writers in the media to mean the same thing as a 'strain' of bacteria, leading to most media discussions of the pathogen having many of the fundamentals wrong. I may have jumped the gun in thinking you were making the same mistake.
Of course, since you're posting on Slashdot, you must be a subject matter expert and know must know better than everyone else.
I am an actual practicing biologist in academia at a major research institution, but don't let that stop you from being a jackass and making claims that don't represent reality. Actual science, practiced by actual scientists, is full of arguments all the time. Scientific conventions are hothouses of drinking, dancing, and fighting. However, once you've decided to go with personal attacks, you're no longer doing science and should examine your motivations.
The word 'strain' doesn't imply anything about pathogenicity. People refer to different strains of plants, animals, fungus, etc. that have no pathogenic modes.
Prions don't replicate themselves. They convert pre-existing host prion proteins into an altered pathogenic conformation. If you have active prion disease, it is your own cellular-synthesized protein which has become mis-folded and is causing pathogenesis. The initial mis-folding in your body can happen sporadically or it can be triggered by mis-folded prion proteins from external exposure.
It turns out there are different pathogenic ways the native prion protein can mis-fold and that these are referred to as 'strains', but that term doesn't imply what it means in other contexts. I'm not claiming that those articles are incorrect, I am claiming that you are misunderstanding those articles because you don't understand what prions are and how they work.
The authors cited use the term 'molecular strain types', when they should have said 'molecular isoforms'. An 'isoform' is not the same as a 'strain type'. An isoform is a variation of a protein, due to a different gene sequence. Unless you're prone to referring to different types of soda pop as different strains, you really shouldn't refer to different isoforms as different strains either.
In particular, you should read further than just the abstract of the paper you just referred to. The second sentence into the introduction is :
Their central feature is the post-translational conversion of host-encoded, cellular prion protein (PrPC) to an abnormal isoform, designated PrPSc.
This accurately tells you what a prion is and how the pathogenic process occurs. Because it is conversion of the host prion proteins, the only 'strain' that exists is the host. With regard to the pathogenic process, it is better to think of some people as 'kuru strain' while others are not.
In general, it really helps to read what you cite. Don't worry, plenty of professional scientists don't do this... citing papers that don't actually have anything to do with what they're talking about in their paper.
yes. you should also look into what a prion actually is.
Of course there is an easy way to prevent the agent from infecting your own populace at a future point... they're called vaccines.
I'm far more scared of pathogens than nukes, though, and I don't think this idea deserves the derision it's getting. Prion diseases, for example, are really terrifying stuff. The kuru strain of the CJD prion, for example, exhibited an incubation period of between 5 and 20 years. If you were really determined, you could get that disease into a lot of people before it started showing itself.
There is no such thing as a 'kuru strain' of the CJD prion. Prions are not infectious organisms. If you get exposed to pathogenic prions, the prions naturally found in your brain are converted into pathogenic prions. This process is more akin to crystallization, rather than a standard infectious process. If you get exposed to pathogenic prions from humans, cows, sheep, or gerbils... the course of the infection is only determined by how you were exposed, how much of the protein you were exposed to, and your own genetic situation.
they can be done in your head, like any other... you might lose your mind in the process, however.
The 'computer models' are the 'theoretical models'. They are validated by comparisons to reality. The models (and the reality) are chaotic, so if you keep calculating a certain model it will diverge from reality in greater degrees. Gravity is a pretty good model, but on the scale of the solar system the effects are chaotic. Every calculation of the solar system has increasing uncertainty as you increase the time into the future you are calculating.
The development of climate science has led progressively to more accurate predictions over time converging on a good answer, at specific future intervals for each calculation. Continuing a single calculation out into the indefinite future leads to increasing uncertainty. I have a hard time believing that you are honestly making this mistake.
It just won't all be found in a single cell, but I think he was planning on sending more than one.
This is generally the notion when talking about chemistry, but apparently biology is something entirely separate from chemistry.
They didn't pay for the research and development. The human genome project produced the data which they then used to apply for patents.
Generally the progress will move forward faster with non-human DNA, then the lessons learned are applied to human DNA. Humans are really hard to keep contained in the lab for multi-generational studies.
I did not commit rape since there is an implicit consent between me and my wife
Actually in the scenario you just described, there is not consent between you and your wife. You wanted sex and she said, "No." This is not "implicit consent" or "consent" in any form, but rather an "explicit rejection". "Consent" refers to agreement.
In a sense, you did "consent" to the notion that your wife is not your property to do with as you will and that you are not a rapist. However, this is not context in which the word is generally used.
Essentially, they found that individuals with poor impulse-control are more likely to get arrested.
Let me break out the Champagne... oh wait, people already knew that poor impulse-control was at the root of most criminality... and we also already knew that the ACC was involved in impulse-control... I guess we now know that A and B = (A and B).
this person didn't really buy the books for himself which is what the first sale doctrine is for? he had relatives buy books for the purpose of reselling them in a country where people have a lot more money.
It doesn't matter why they were bought. The first-sale doctrine says that you only control it until you sell it. Once you have sold it, it is no longer yours to control. If you want control over something, then don't give control to someone else by selling it to them.
The original sample was the cancer which killed Henrietta Lacks. Cancers generally have rampant chromosomal aberrations, though it is not entirely reasoned out if the aberrations are a cause or consequence of the unregulated growth which defines the cancer.
This result doesn't invalidate any science. Every experiment using a model teaches us something about the model. We make inferences from those results which we apply and test in other systems, such as human medicine. Given that there are humans walking around with alterations to their chromosomes (admittedly at a lesser level than this), even results from one human don't necessarily apply to any other human.
It will probably be in the next version of NetHack.